Comments to the Author

In this paper, the authors focused on the “Job Rotation Scheduling in the Seru System: Shake
Enforced Invasive Weed Optimization Approach”. This article needs to be improved to match
to the standard of the journal. For that I suggest that this paper must be re-edited, it is a draft paper,
and it is not ready for a publication. By checking this paper carefully, I think this paper can be
considered acceptable after the major revisions listed as follows:
1. The introduction part should be reorganized because the current version cannot reflect the
research motivation and main contributions of this paper. The authors only summarized
some existing works and mentioned the drawbacks but what are the drawbacks existed with
the existed methodology and why? I think it is insufficient to let the authors know why
your work is required.
2. Few more recent literature surveys must be included in the review sections and write in
flow staring from the initial development in seru systems towards the latest algorithm
implementation.
3. Grammatical error which needs to be corrected throughout the article.
4. It is better to provide flow diagram of the implementation procedure of the algorithm to
address the job rotation scheduling problem.
5. It is better to provide equation number throughout the article.
6. Image quality is inferior, not clear. Give the 300 dpi image with high quality
7. In Step 1 of Section 4.1, author described about job rotation scheduling in seru systems and
not clearly explained, how the proposed algorithm integrated to the considered problem.
Explain clearly.
8. The modified section is not clearly explained which makes it confusing, how it is modified
from original proposed IWO is not clearly explained in Section 4.
9. The authors considered the parameters of algorithms by hit and trail methods, but did not
provide the obtained results, which is strange.
10. What are the effects of the change in tuning parameters of the algorithm on the obtained
results?
11. Table 2 must be present in a single page.
12. It is better to provide Figure 3 which actually Figure 5, I believe in Tabular form.
13. Conclusion must be improved.

I want to check the revised version and give my final decision based on the quality of revised
version.